logo
Medicaid Expansions Save Lives, Study Finds

Medicaid Expansions Save Lives, Study Finds

Yahoo07-05-2025

Medicaid recipient Emily Gabriella protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court as oral arguments are delivered in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic on April 2, 2025 in Washington D.C. Credit -As Congress eyes sweeping cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for low-income adults that serves about 20% of people living in the U.S., a new study has a sharp conclusion: cuts to Medicaid will cost lives.
The study, published in the National Bureau of Economic Research on May 5, tracked nearly 40 million people who gained Medicaid through state-based expansions under the Affordable Care Act between 2010 and 2022. It found that during that time, Medicaid expansions increased enrollment and reduced members' risk of death by 2.5%.
People who enrolled in Medicaid because they gained eligibility saw a 20% reduction in their risk of death when compared to people in states who could not access Medicaid, the study found. In short, Medicaid expansions saved about 27,400 lives between 2010 and 2022, according to the study, by Dartmouth economics professor Angela Wyse and University of Chicago economics professor Bruce D. Meyer.
It might seem obvious that expanding access to health insurance will improve people's health. But academics have actually had a difficult time proving this, Wyse says.
'This study really does a lot to advance our understanding of the magnitude of this relationship between health insurance and this really important health outcome,' she says.
Read More: Trump Administration Cuts Funding for Autism Research—Even As It Aims to Find the Cause
Medicaid expansion saves lives because it allows people to see doctors and access preventative care, and get recommendations from doctors about how to improve their lifestyles, she says.
The study is one of the largest to date showing the health impacts on expanding Medicaid. It also found that gaining access to Medicaid reduced the chance of death across demographics.
Its conclusion is especially relevant as Congress seeks to cut $600-$800 million from the Medicaid program over the next decade. Though around 70 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid, the numbers vary tremendously by state. That's because the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, allowed states to expand Medicaid to more people, offering some funding for them to do so.
Forty-one states—including conservative ones like Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana—have expanded Medicaid in the years since the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act. But 12 states have trigger laws in place that would automatically end the Medicaid expansion, or that would require significant changes to the program should there be reductions to the amount of money the federal government provides.
Potential cuts to Medicaid are extremely controversial; an April KFF poll found that 76% of the public opposes major cuts to Medicaid. Even some Republicans seem wary of approving cuts. In April, 12 conservative members of Congress wrote a letter to GOP leaders reiterating their support of Medicaid. 'We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations,' the letter concluded.
The study also found that Medicaid is a relatively cost-effective way to save lives. It cost only about $5.4 million per life saved, which is actually relatively low compared to other interventions, Wyse says.
'I feel pretty confident in saying that restricting Medicaid access is going to have the real human cost of having more people die than otherwise would have,' she says.
Contact us at letters@time.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports
RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. Used 'Disinformation' to Defend Change to Vaccine Schedule, Expert Says: Reports

The Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document that cited disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News The document was written in support of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy kids and pregnant women 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of PediatricsThe Department of Health and Human Services sent Congress a document to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change federal vaccine recommendations that cited unpublished or disputed studies and misrepresented other findings, according to NPR and KFF Health News. In late May, Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism, announced on X that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) removed the COVID vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, while touting President Trump's Make America Healthy Again agenda. "It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there," Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine, told KFF Health News, the outlet that obtained the FAQ document. The outlet also reported that the document suggests a link between heart conditions like myocarditis or pericarditis and the COVID vaccine, but updated research suggests that connection has decreased with newer vaccine procedures. The document also left out multiple other peer-reviewed studies that show the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after getting sick with COVID for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone, per KFF Health News. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science," a HHS spokesperson told KFF Health News. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told KFF Health News. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Read the original article on People

A member of RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement and a public health expert met on Zoom. Here's what happened next.
A member of RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement and a public health expert met on Zoom. Here's what happened next.

Boston Globe

time28 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

A member of RFK Jr.'s MAHA movement and a public health expert met on Zoom. Here's what happened next.

The conversations are the brainchild of Brinda Adhikari, a journalist and former television producer who grew increasingly concerned about Americans' mistrust of institutions after Donald Trump's reelection. 'These are two groups that talk a lot about each other,' said Adhikari, who has worked for ABC News and the podcast 'The Problem with Jon Stewart.' 'I just don't see a lot of spaces where they talk to each other or with each other.' The conversations are captured on Adhikari's weekly podcast, ' Advertisement Despite the high stakes, the goal wasn't to change anyone's mind, said Adhikari, who lives in Brooklyn. She hoped both sides would discover shared concerns and better understand their opponents' perspectives. Those common worries included the risks of corporate influence in science and medicine, the possible harms Medicaid cuts could cause, and the safety of Americans' food. 'I didn't expect the areas of agreement would be so obvious that we would actually find spaces to work together almost immediately,' said Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, who participated in the conversations. Advertisement Though 'We really came into this feeling ostracized,' said Elizabeth Frost, a panelist who led Kennedy's Ohio presidential campaign operation. 'What really surprised me is a lot of people in public health feel the same way.' The two groups, five MAHA representatives and the same number of public health experts, met twice in May. A third conversation involved a few of the same panelists, plus MAHA representatives from Georgia. Some meetings took on the tenor of estranged family members working to heal rifts. MAHA is grounded in a deep skepticism of establishment medicine. Many gravitated toward the movement after feeling let down by doctors they had trusted. Public health experts derive their knowledge from establishment medicine: They rely on hard-won data and the scientific method for their conclusions. One side feels ignored or dismissed. The other is frustrated and dismayed by how little sway scientific evidence and expertise hold with some MAHA adherents. Advertisement 'Scientists try their best to be open-minded, and ... we push and test each other to make sure that we're coming up with new ideas and using the best methods possible and getting as close to truth as we can,' Ranney said during the podcast. She then asked Frost, 'What would help folks to feel like science was being done with and for them?' 'There was a lot of outrage for having any questions about the way that the COVID pandemic was handled,' Frost responded. 'People on the MAHA side of it felt very demonized and very othered, that they weren't allowed to be a part of the conversation.' The MAHA movement coalesced around Kennedy's presidential campaign last year, though it adopted its name only after he suspended his campaign for president and endorsedTrump and his Make American Great Again movement. MAHA emphasizes personal choice in health, with a focus on addressing chronic illness, food quality, and distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. It also is associated with opposing longstanding, and well-proven, public health cornerstones, including the importance of widespread vaccination and water fluoridation to improve dental health. It's proven to have surprising appeal to members of both political parties, drawing liberals, MAGA Republicans, and independents, said Frost. As a result, members' beliefs are highly heterodox. Antivax sentiments are far from uniform, and dissatisfaction with overall policies in the Trump administration isn't unusual. Mark Harris, another Ohio MAHA leader, described himself as an independent thinker. He disapproves of proposed deep cuts to Medicaid and was among the first in his friend group to recognize how serious COVID would be. He did take the COVID-19 vaccine, he said. Advertisement 'I do believe in herd immunity,' he said in an interview. 'I believe in vaccines being very helpful in achieving that.' He emphasized during one of the podcasts, though, that the word vaccine implies permanent protection against an illness, and seems like a misnomer when applied to the COVID shots. COVID shots reliably offer long-term protection against serious illness and death but don't keep the virus entirely at bay over more than a few months. 'I completely agree with you,' said Paul Offit, one of the nation's most prominent vaccine experts and a member of the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Advisory Committee. 'Very early we should have made that very clear what the vaccine can and can't do.' The two sides also generally agree on why so many Americans have lost faith in the medical establishment. Access is expensive and difficult. Insurance coverage can appear arbitrary and confusing. Interactions with physicians are often through overcrowded emergency departments or with harried primary care physicians with barely the time to spend 10 minutes with a patient. Public health officials are not often visible, trusted figures in a community until an emergency arrives, leaving them with limited credibility, noted Craig Spencer, associate professor of the practice of health services, policy and practice at Brown University. Many public health officials wish scientific evidence spoke for itself, particularly when it comes to the power of vaccines. Polio is virtually unheard of in the United States. Measles was eliminated in this country before lower vaccination rates allowed it to resurface. The absence of these illnesses makes it hard for people who didn't live before widespread inoculation to fully believe in the value of vaccines, Spencer said, and data alone can't compete with a powerful messenger. Advertisement People like Kennedy have stepped in to fill that communication gap. Many of his ideas aren't supported by science, Spencer said, but his ability to command an audience is enviable. 'They've done such an incredible job just being out there,' he said of MAHA leaders and influencers. 'Even if they're saying some things, a lot of things that I wouldn't agree with, they're out there and that is instilling trust." During the podcast, Frost described how angry she was that people with COVID had been denied ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Offit responded with a layman's explanation of the evidence that the drugs aren't effective against the virus and, in the case of hydroxychloroquine, may do harm. Yet in the interview Frost didn't sound especially convinced, saying she gives the most weight to what her physician recommends. That wasn't evidence of the podcast's failure, Adhikari said. 'That you're going to sit down with someone whom you've never met and act as though you could say something to them within a two hour conversation that will completely change something that is a deep-rooted value for them, it's just not reasonable,' she said. 'What I am trying to do is to build the bridge, to trust each other enough to even be at the same table.' Jason Laughlin can be reached at

NIH chief sidesteps controversy while other officials court it
NIH chief sidesteps controversy while other officials court it

Axios

time31 minutes ago

  • Axios

NIH chief sidesteps controversy while other officials court it

National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya didn't aggressively push back and defend Trump administration budget cuts and grant freezes when senators grilled him last week about plans for his agency. An $18 billion cut in the 2026 NIH budget request was just a starting point for negotiations, he said. Why it matters: The hearing showed how the former Stanford professor is trying to deflect controversy over the administration's health agenda while others on President Trump's health team under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have leaned into their roles as disruptors. That's raising questions about who has the final say over the government's biomedical research hub. Bhattacharya is "in a difficult position with limited influence," Capital Alpha Partners analyst Rob Smith wrote in a note on Friday. "RFK appears to be running the show at the subagencies he oversees as HHS Secretary. It's our understanding that very little happens without his input." What they're saying: An HHS spokesperson told Axios that NIH and Bhattacharya are fully committed to advancing research, improving health outcomes and supporting scientific discovery. Constructive criticism pushes this innovation forward, they said. The big picture: NIH is the largest public payer of biomedical research in the world. It funds academic research and develops and funds much of the science behind products that drug companies eventually commercialize. The Trump budget's plan to cut its funding 40% next year could kneecap pharma and the biotech industry. State of play: Bhattacharya tried to find a middle ground during the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, taking credit for fighting what he called "politicized science" while telling lawmakers he didn't accept the job to terminate grants. "This is my first time through this budget fight, and so I'm still learning, but I'll tell you what I understand is that this — the budget — is a collaborative effort between Congress and the administration," Bhattacharya said. "We have tremendous health needs that we have to address. It's only excellent research that's going to solve those problems," he said. His written testimony didn't mention the cuts, instead laying out the administration's policy priorities for NIH and the funding they are requesting. Zoom in: It's true that the budget proposal is just the first step in a negotiation process, and Congress gets the final say on funding levels. But Bhattacharya's decision not to explicitly defend the budget cuts shows that his role remains cryptic on a health team that's eagerly pushing boundaries. Kennedy defended the cuts strongly when he appeared in front of the same panel last month. "All the money that we've been pouring into these programs for years has not resulted in better health for Americans. ... We won't solve this problem by throwing more money at it. We must spend smarter," Kennedy said. The intrigue: Bhattacharya was sworn in as NIH director in April — just as mass layoffs at the agency ordered by Kennedy and DOGE went into effect. He quickly sent an all-hands letter to staff expressing gratitude for their work and pledging to implement changes "humanely." Bhattacharya has set up an appeals process to review grants that were terminated through keyword searches and other aggressive efforts to root out DEI initiatives. NIH was one of the first agencies to tell employees they didn't have to answer Elon Musk's "five things" weekly emails, and Bhattacharya reportedly called the task silly in an address to NIH staff. But the frozen grants and budget request haven't earned him much of a grace period with Congress. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said last week the proposed budget cuts would "delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, Type 1 diabetes — I could go on and on." "A President's budget is not a 'negotiation with Congress,' it's a statement of priorities and values," Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the ranking member of the committee's subpanel on health, told Axios in a statement. Reality check: Bhattacharya is no stranger to controversy. During the pandemic, he was disparaged by the medical establishment for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, a petition arguing for COVID to spread among young, healthy people to reach herd immunity faster. He's been receptive to the idea that NIH-funded research in China led directly to the spread of COVID, and he's cast doubt on the merits of gender-affirming medical care for kids. "I think Dr. Bhattacharya wants NIH to continue to set the pace for medical progress, but what matters is whether he acts on intention and stops the dismantling of American-led research," Ellie Dehoney, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Research!America, told Axios in an email. What we're watching: Bhattacharya is demurring, and there's bipartisan interest in keeping NIH well-funded. Congress in the near term is likely to maintain the status quo through stopgap spending measures.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store